Video games will never look this good in your lifetime or your children's lifetime

>video games will never look this good in your lifetime or your children's lifetime

Why is the industry so far behind?

consoles have held us back, soon will have graphics like this

> implying op will have kids or sex in his lifetime

Consoles.

Video games will look better than that within five years, or my name isn't Winnie the Pooh

Because movies have an infinite amount of time to render each frame.
We gotta work with what we got fast

Pic related is mostly shitty due to incompetence though

That's not feasible.
Silly old bear.

Yiff in hell, furfag.

I'm sure you have the technological acumen to justify that claim.

because videogames are rendered in real time you moron

>Because movies have an infinite amount of time to render each frame.
What the fuck are you talking about, retard

They don't need to. Your autistic obsession with muh graphics is what keeps game from taking so long to be released. For an example see Final Fantasy 7 Remake.

Because the industry choose to focus on gameplay

Becuase they're fucking videogames blockhead and that's what they should be doing

Do you really not understand? You must render every frame of a game in real time outside of cutscenes. Movies have a long ass time to render every frame, so they can just throw all of the effects, detail, lighting, etc. they want at the models.

What, do you honestly think the movie is being rendered each time you watch it or something? Or are you just taking the word "infinite" literally?

What's the point of this thread?

To prove that making a "movie" first rather a game will only ruin the game

Just look at Ratchet and Clank 2016

>Movies have a long ass time to render every frame

I think you mean to say that they're prerendered. They already rendered the movie in the studio (which they had unlimited time to do) and made a recording of the render. Then they shipped the recording to be played back.

photo realism is cancer and unnecessary

OP wants people to post raccoons but we're not degenerates here

You are kidding, right?
Go play a game that came out a decade ago. Then go play one that came out two decades ago. Fucking do it, don't just watch a video of one or look at a screenshot, and non of this 'It's not 60 fps it hurts my eyes' bullshit, go and play through them from start to finish.

By the time you're done with the second, you should have much more of an appreciation for how far graphics have come in such a short period of time. It wasn't all that long ago that the best we had was MS-DOS and 2D sprites. If you think games won't reach this level within your lifetime, you're insane.

Except in the realm of hardware we're going to pushing the boundaries of physics at a certain point.

Considering what we had 5 or even almost 10 years ago Imma have to disagree

>UNIX systems with OpenGL or Vulkan doing ray tracing
vs
>Windows with DirectX

One is a platform designed for serious business with access to the full capabilities of a modern PC.
The other is crippled by a console API and a company determined to reduce the PC to the level of their console.

>Real time rendering vs. pre rendering
Some people have been playing games all their lives and dont really know shit about them, most of Sup Forums

5 years ago we had Skyrim.
Today we have Skyrim with hdr.

why are there hotdogs on a stick?

Same reason that gets posted in every one of these threads you make.
It takes hours to render those scenes for the movie. There's no way we could render them in real time in an interactive environment.

If you can get ray tracing to run a modern game at at least a stable 30 fps within 5 years then we're talking.

they are reeds you retard.

>American education

Almost 10 years ago we had Crysis

Man, to think that its happened to older movies though.